14 49. Regarding the statement offered by the alleged victim (supra paras. 23, 25, and 47), this Tribunal accepts it in what it is consistent with its object, stated in Judgment of April 28, 2005 (supra para. 23). In this sense, since the alleged victim has a direct interest in the case, his statements may not be evaluated in an isolated manner, but instead within the entire body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis.7 50. In what refers to the sworn statements (affidavits) of the expert witnesses Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, Alberto Martín Binder, Alejandro E. Álvarez, César Barrientos Pellecer, and Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez (supra paras. 24, 25, and 47), the Court admits them in what they are consistent with its object and assesses them within the entire body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis. 51. Regarding the articles published by the press, the Tribunal considers that even though they do not have the nature of documentary evidence mentioned, they may be assessed when they include public or notorious facts or statements of State employees or they corroborate that established in other documents or statements received during the process.8 52. The Court considers that the documents provided by the representatives in the final brief of pleadings are useful for the ruling of the present case, since they were not contested or objected, nor was their authenticity or veracity put in question. Therefore, they are included in the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.9 53. Regarding the documents requested and presented as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra paras. 23, 25, and 30), the Court includes them in the body of evidence of the present case pursuant to that stated in the second subparagraph of Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. VII PROVEN FACTS 54(1) On May 10, 1997 Mr. Fermín Ramírez was arrested by a group of neighbors of the Las Morenas village, who turned him in to the National Police for allegedly having committed a crime against the minor Grindi Jasmín Franco Torres10. 54(2) On May 15, 1997 the Second Lower Court of Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of Escuintla ordered the preventive detention 7 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 3, para. 47; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 40; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 78. 8 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 3, para. 43; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 80; and Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 81. 9 Cfr. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 81; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paras. 78 and 85; and Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 8, para. 90. 10 Cfr. Judgment of March 6, 1998 issued by the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Trial Court (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 7, folios 88 and 89).